SD 

428 

Y8R2 


RELATIVE  TO  THE 
FOREST  RESERVATION 
WHICH  IS  CALLED 
THE  YOSEMITE  NATIONAL 
PARK,  STATE  OF 
CALIFORNIA 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Relative  to 

The   Forest   Reservation 

which  is  called 

The  Yosemite  National  Park 

State  of  California 


PERNAU   PUBLISHING   COMPANY 

423    HAYES  STREET 
SAN   FRANCISCO.    CALIFORNIA 


Relative  to 


The  Forest  Reservation 

Which  is  Called 

The  Yosemite  National  Park 


The  United  States  Reservation,  Known  as  "Yosemite 
National  Park",  Is  Not  a  National  Park  at  all,  but 
Merely  a  Forest  Reservation  Made  by  Act  of 
Congress  and  Committed  to  the  Care  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  With  Instructions  to 
Preserve  From  Despoliation  the  Curiosities  and 
Natural  Wonders  Within  It. 

Emphatically  and  clearly,  the  Act  of  Congress  setting 
aside  this  reservation  did  not  dedicate  it  as,  or  make  it  a 
national  park,  but  with  all  necessary  precision  that  Act 
established  it  as  a  forest  reservation.  Further  than  this, 
a  later  Act,  changing  its  boundaries,  expressly  preserved 
that  status  as  a  forest  reservation,  in  express  terms  left 
it  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  original  Act  as  a  for- 
est reservation,  and  said  nothing  which  by  any  reading 
of  the  English  language  can  be  construed  as  giving  this 
reservation  the  legal  status  of  a  national  park. 

The  reservation  thus  established  has  been  called  The 
yosemite  National  Park,  but  this  designation  of  it  by  a 
park  name  does  not,  can  not,  give  it  other  status  before 
the  law  than  that  clearly  affixed  by  the  Acts  of  Congress 
making  and  remaking  it  a  forest  reservation.  There  is 


.'506447 


no  Act  of  Congress  which  establishes  it  as  a  park. 
There  are  two  such  Acts  which  establish  it  as  a  forest 
reservation. 

The  case  seems  to  be  so  plain  both  as  to  the  letter  of 
these  laws  and  as  to  the  spirit  which  Congress  enacted 
into  them,  that  there  should  be  no  moment  of  hesitation 
in  according  to  this  area  its  legal  status  as  a  forest  res- 
ervation, or  in  making  it  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
those  Acts  of  Congress  undeniably  applicable  to  all 
"public  lands  and  reservations  of  the  United  States", 
including  forest  reservations. 


National  Parks  and  National  Forest  Reservations  Are 
Made  for  Essentially  Different  Prime  Purposes, 
and  the  Making  of  Them  Is  Not  to  Be  Mistaken 
in  Either  Case. 

In  law  a  national  park  is  an  area  "set  apart  and  ded- 
"  icated  forever  as  a  pleasuring  ground  for  the  use  and 
"  enjoyment  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  ";  while 
a  forest  reservation  is  an  area  supposedly  covered  with 
trees  or  brushy  growths,  which  has  been  merely  with- 
drawn from  the  body  of  the  public  lands,  and  is  held  for 
"  the  preservation  and  propagation  of  its  forests  and  to 
"  promote  good  conditions  of  water  flow".  These  two 
purposes  are,  practically,  quite  different,  and  though  for- 
est growths  should  be  and  are  jealously  preserved  in 
national  parks,  and  though  forest  reservations  should 
be  and  are  open  to  pleasurable  use  and  enjoyment  by 


3 


the  people,  to  effect  the  main  purpose  in  each  case,  the 
legal  status  of  the  two  kinds  of  reservations  is  made 
different. 

In  the  one  case,  we  have  a  dedication  forever,  to  the 
people,  as  a  pleasuring  ground,  the  idea  of  commercial 
or  economic  use  or  development,  presumably,  being 
ignored.  Dedication  as  a  park,  seems  to  preclude  pos- 
sibility of  subsequent  change  of  purpose  without  formal 
consent  by  the  people.  The  dedication  is  to  their  use 
and  enjoyment  forever.  The  area  seems  thereby  to  be 
removed  from  possibility  of  other  disposal  by  the  gov- 
ernment without  the  people's  expressed  mandate. 

In  the  other  case,  we  have  simply  a  withdrawal  of  the 
area  from  the  balance  of  the  public  lands,  and  its  res- 
ervation from  settlement,  in  order  that  its  forests  may 
be  maintained  because  of  their  direct  value  as  sources 
of  timber  supply  and  their  incidental  value  as  conserva- 
tors of  water  supply.  Here  we  have  the  commercial 
idea  dominant. 

Whatever  may  be  the  policy  of  Government  as  to  the 
management  of  forest  areas,  whether,  as  their  owner, 
it  will  hold  all  their  advantages  for  its  own  direct  ac- 
count, or  whether  the  opportunities  for  commercial  de- 
velopment which  this  control  affords  are  to  be  opened 
to  exploitation  by  private  or  incorporated  enterprise, 
the  economic  end  to  be  subserved  by  making  an  area 
into  a  forest  reservation  rather  than  a  national  park, 
remains  the  same. 


Moreover,  the  area  put  into  a  forest  reservation  still 
remains  subject  to  the  unhampered  control  of  Congress. 
Unlike  a  dedicated  park,  a  forest  reserve  or  any  part  of 
it  may,  by  Act  of  Congress,  lawfully  be  returned  to  the 
body  of  the  public  domain  and  the  lands  may  be  again 
opened  to  settlement.  The  boundaries  of  forest  reser- 
vations have  thus  frequently  been  changed,  some  parts 
being  left  out,  other  areas  being  taken  in. 

The  trees  of  forest  reservations  are  to  be  preserved, 
primarily,  in  order  that  they  may  in  due  season  be  con- 
verted into  commercial  timber.  The  trees  of  national 
parks  are  to  be  preserved,  primarily,  in  order  that  the 
people  may  for  all  time  have  and  enjoy  specimens  and 
groves  of  those  noble  growths  which  it  has  taken  long 
ages  to  produce.  The  waters  of  forest  reservations  are 
to  be  conserved  and  made  to  flow,  primarily,  in  order 
that  they  may  be  used  and  made  of  economic  benefit. 
The  waters  of  national  parks  are  to  be  conserved  and 
allowed  to  flow,  primarily,  in  order  that  the  people  may 
enjoy  nature  in  its  grandest  and  most  varied  aspects. 

Now,  while  the  controlling  purposes  of  the  two  classes 
of  reservations  are  distinct  and  right,  it  is  not  necessary 
that  we  conclude  that  the  waters  and  forests  of  national 
parks  are  to  be  held  so  sacred  to  public  enjoyment,  only, 
that  no  commercial  use  whatever  may  be  made  of  them, 
any  more  than  we  would  be  justified  in  assuming  that 
forest  reservations  may  not  be  pleasurably  used  and 
enjoyed  by  the  people,  because  the  prime  end  in  making 
them  is  an  economic  one.  But  it  is  necessary  that  we 


realize  that  the  kind  of  control  of  a  national  park  area, 
keeping  in  mind  its  prime  purpose,  must  be  different 
from  the  kind  of  management  suited  to  a  forest  reserva- 
tion, in  view  of  its  prime  purpose. 

In  the  case  of  the  national  park,  the  Government 
would  be  acting  in  its  sovereign  capacity  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  people.  In  the  case  of  the  forest  reser- 
vation, the  Government  would  be  acting  merely  as  the 
owner  of  lands  composing  it,  and  could,  through  its  ad- 
ministration, undertake  to  do  nothing  whatever,  other 
than  land  owners  in  general  might  do. 


The  Economic  Considerations  in  the  Case  Herein 
Referred  to  Were  Paramount,  and  Forest  Reser- 
vations Were  Made,  Not  Parks. 

Congress  has  made  laws  undeniably  intended  for  the 
encouragement  of  economic  development  upon  the  pub- 
lic lands  and  reservations.  These  laws  have  been  made 
applicable  to  "all  reservations  of  the  United  States", 
and  this  expression  clearly  includes  forest  reservations, 
but  may  not,  in  the  view  of  some  authorities,  include 
national  parks.  It  becomes  important,  therefore,  for 
economic  reasons  as  well  as  others,  to  know  whether 
Congress  has  dedicated  nearly  fourteen  hundred  square 
miles  of  territory,  an  area  larger  than  the  State  of 
Ehode  Island,  situated  in  the  heart  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, as  a  national  park,  thereby,  possibly,  making 
necessary  its  control  without  regard  to  the  rights  of  the 


6 


owners  of  lands  which  have  been  embraced  within  its 
borders,  and  without  regard  to  the  commercial  interests 
of  the  people  of  the  State  in  the  development  of  the 
resources  thus  held,  or  whether  it  has  simply  placed 
these  areas  in  forest  reservations  to  be  managed,  by 
its  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  under  special  instructions, 
for  the  Government  as  a  great  land  owner. 

It  is  not  disputed,  of  course,  that  Congress  has  the 
power  to  make  national  parks  at  will,  where  the  lands 
embraced  are  of  the  public  domain;  but  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people  and  of  the  States  are  supposed  to 
take  the  rights  of  individuals,  the  necessities  of  industry, 
and  the  interests  of  local  publics,  under  State  laws,  into 
consideration,  as  well  as  the  advisability  of  providing 
national  play  grounds,  in  the  creation  of  forest  reserva- 
tions or  the  dedication  of  national  parks,  even  as  in  any 
other  branch  of  legislation. 

As  we  shall  presently  see,  there  were  already  three 
great  public  mountain  parks  in  existence  in  this  part  of 
the  Sierra  Nevada  region.  With  this  fact  before  it,  did 
Congress  see  a  necessity  for  making  three  additional, 
and,  in  the  aggregate,  much  larger  ones,  when  it  is  said 
to  have  made  the  so-called  Yosemite  National  Park,  or 
did  it  see  the  advisability  of  making  three  forest  reser- 
vations? That  is  the  question.  The  clearly  apparent 
facts  and  the  Acts  of  Congress  themselves  forcibly  show 
that  Congress  must  have  seen  there  was  no  excuse  for 
making  additional  national  parks  in  this  region,  but 


there  was  a  reason  for  reserving  the  forest  lands  and 
providing  for  care  of  the  remarkable  natural  features 
embraced  within  the  adjacent  high  mountain  area. 


The  Yosemite  Valley  Grant  Status  Affords  a  Key  to 
the  Situation,  While  at  the  Same  Time  it  Ac- 
counts for  Much  Popular  Misunderstanding  of  it 

Before  reviewing  the  facts  of  the  so-called  Yosemite 
National  Park  case,  it  is  well  that  we  understand  the 
status  of  the  Yosemite  Valley  Grant : 

By  Act  of  Congress  approved  June  30th,  1864,  the 
United  States  granted  "to  the  State  of  California  the 
"  'cleft'  or  'gorge'  in  the  Granite  peak  of  the  Sierra 
"  Nevada  mountains,  *  *  *  known  as  Yo-Semite 
"  Valley,  with  its  branches  and  spurs",  etc.  Subse- 
quent survey  delineation  of  the  boundaries  of  this  grant 
established  it  as  embracing  about  fifty  square  miles  of 
territory  whose  limits  were  marked  by  an  irregular  line 
following  around  the  famous  valley  and,  in  general, 
about  one  mile  back  from  the  upper  edge  of  the  cliffs 
which  at  once  border  and  make  it,  thus  including  an 
area  about  thirteen  miles  in  length  and  four  and  one- 
half  miles  maximum  width.  This  area  has  always  been 
known  as  the  "Yosemite  Valley  Grant". 

The  terms  of  the  grant  were  such  that  the  State  had  to 
accept  it  upon  the  express  conditions  that  the  "granted 
"  premises  shall  be  held  for  public  use,  resort  and  recre- 


8 


"  ation  and  shall  be  inalienable  for  all  time".  In 
other  words,  the  Yosemite  Valley  was  given  to  the  State 
as  a  public  recreation  ground  or  mountain  park,  and  as 
such  it  was  held  and  administered  by  the  State  until 
March,  1905,  when  it  was  by  Act  of  the  State  Legislature 
reconveyed  to  the  United  States  upon  practically  the 
same  conditions,  namely,  that  it  "be  held  for  all  time 
"  by  the  United  States  of  America  for  public  use,  resort 
"  and  recreation ".  By  joint  resolution.  Congress  ac- 
cepted it  on  these  terms,  in  June,  1906. 

This  area  is  a  park,  because  it  was  from  its  first  estab- 
lishment expressly  dedicated  for  all  time  to  uses  such  as 
parks  are  designed  for.  It  was  not  set  aside  as  a  forest 
reserve  or  for  the  purposes  sought  under  the  law  to  be 
subserved  by  the  establishing  of  national  forests.  Now 
that  it  again  belongs  to  the  United  States,  it  is  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes  a  national  park,  although  there  is  no 
law  expressly  making  it  such,  and  most  fittingly  it  might 
be  named  the  " Yosemite  National  Park".  But  this  is 
not  the  Yosemite  National  Park,  so-called,  of  which 
this  argument  is  written. 

The  above  Yosemite  Valley  Grant  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, embracing  all  of  the  Yosemite  Valley,  was  not 
and  was  not  known  as  the  Yosemite  National  Park  dur- 
ing the  period  of  its  ownership  by  the  State,  from  1864 
to  1905.  It  is  not  now,  even  though  it  has  been  recon- 
veyed to  the  United  States,  and  notwithstanding  the  joint 
resolution  of  acceptance,  properly  a  part  of  the  forest 
reservation  named  the  Yosemite  National  Park.  The 


9 


General  Government  could  accept  the  "grant"  back 
only  as  a  park,  with  the  condition  that  it  be  maintained 
as  such  for  all  time;  and,  it  could  not,  in  good  faith,  in- 
corporate it  with  or  give  it  the  status  of  the  forest  reser- 
vation which  surrounds  it  and  which  is  merely  called  a 
park. 

We  thus  see  that  the  Government  possesses  that  which 
should  be  the  officially  named  Yosemite  National  Park, 
embracing  as  it  does  the  Yosemite  Valley,  but  which 
necessarily  is  a  separate  possession  from  that  called  the 
Yosemite  National  Park. 


The  Act  of  Congress  of  October  1,  1890,  Unques- 
tionably Established  Three  Forest  Reservations, 
of  Which  One  Has  Been  Called  the  Yosemite 
National  Park. 

The  lawfully  named  Yosemite  National  Park,  which  is 
not,  according  to  the  law,  a  national  park,  is  another  pos- 
session of  the  Government,  of  which  the  Yosemite  Valley 
does  not  form  a  part. 

The  forest  reservation  called  the  Yosemite  National 
Park  and  which  has  been  administered  under  this  name 
by  the  United  States  Department  of  the  Interior,  was 
created  by  Act  of  Congress  approved  October  1st,  1890, 
and  re-established  within  modified  boundary  lines,  by  a 
similar  Act  approved  February  7th,  1905. 


10 


Originally,  this  area  was  rectangular,  measuring  about 
38  miles  from  east  to  west  and  33  miles  from  north  to 
south,  and  embracing  over  1200  square  miles  of  terri- 
tory. By  the  Act  of  1905  its  rectangular  form  was  aban- 
doned, its  exterior  lines  were  made  to  follow  certain 
natural  watershed  ridges  of  the  mountains,  except  along 
its  western  border,  and  its  area  was  reduced  to  about 
1050  square  miles.  It  originally  surrounded  and  still 
does  wholly  enclose  the  Yosemite  Valley  Grant  tract. 
Thus,  we  have  about  1000  square  miles  of  forest  reserva- 
tion called  a  park,  embracing  about  50  square  miles  of 
the  Yosemite  Valley  Grant  tract  which,  as  said,  properly 
has  a  park  status  in  law  and  should,  in  good  faith  with 
the  State  of  California,  be  regularly  established  as  a 
national  park. 

The  forest  reservation  Act  of  October  1st,  1890,  said 
that  the  certain  lands  embraced  within  the  described 
boundary  "are  hereby  reserved  and  withdrawn  from 
settlement,  occupancy  or  sale  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  set  apart  as  reserved  forest  lands"; 
and  the  amendatory  Act  of  February  7th,  1905,  repeated 
that  the  lands  contained  within  the  changed  boundaries 
are  hereby  "reserved  and  withdrawn  from  settlement, 
"  occupancy  or  sale  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
"  and  set  apart  as  reserved  forest  lands,  subject  to  all 
"  the  provisions"  of  the  former  Act,  naming  it. 

The  first  Act  was  named  "An  Act  to  set  apart  certain 
"  tracts  of  land  in  the  State  of  California  as  forest  res- 
"  ervations".  The  second  Act  recognized  the  use  of  the 


11 


name,  "Yosemite  National  Park",  which  meanwhile  had 
been  attached  to  that  reservation,  by  directing  that  mon- 
eys derived  from  sale  of  certain  rights  of  way  in  the  area 
excluded  by  it  from  the  reservation  shall  be  "  expended 
"  under  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  in  the 
"  management,  improvement,  and  protection  of  the 
"  forest  lands  herein  set  aside  and  reserved,  which  shall 
"  hereafter  be  known  as  the  Yosemite  National  Park". 
This  is  all  that  is  said  towards  making  the  place  a  park. 

This  way  in  which  the  park  name  is  used  effectually 
precludes  any  inference  of  an  intention  on  the  part  of 
Congress  to  establish  a  park  or  to  convert  into  a  park 
by  the  Act  of  1905  the  forest  reservation  theretofore 
withdrawn  and  set  aside  and  thereby  re-established.  To 
say  that  an  area  expressly  made  into  a  forest  reserve 
"shall  be  known"  as  the  Yosemite  National  Park  no 
more  makes  it  an  area  having  the  legal  status  of  a  na- 
tional park  than  would  an  unsupported  Congressional 
declaration  that  it  * '  shall  be  known  as  the  American  Na- 
"  tional  Indian  Eeservation"  make  it  an  area  subject  to 
control  and  use  as  an  Indian  reservation. 

The  Act  of  Congress  of  February  7,  1905,  Confirmed 
the  Forest  Reservation  Status  Set  Up  by  the  First 
Act,  Authorized  the  Name  of  Yosemite  National 
Park;  but  Did  No  More. 

If  in  addition  to  the  mere  naming  of  the  reservation, 
any  meaning  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  words,  "the  forest 
"  lands  herein  set  aside  and  reserved,  which  shall  here- 


12 


"  after  be  known  as  the  'Yosemite  National  Park'  ", 
logically  and  grammatically  that  meaning  must  consti- 
tute a  confirmation  of  the  forest  reserve  status  of  the 
tract.  We  cannot,  either  in  logic  or  in  grammar,  make 
that  clause  mean — * '  the  forest  lands  herein  set  apart  and 
"  reserved  shall  hereafter  be  the  Yosemite  National 
11  Park",  but  we  can  easily,  according  to  rule,  read  it  as 
equivalent  to — "although  the  area  herein  set  apart  and 
"  reserved  is  to  be  held  merely  as  a  forest  reservation, 
"  the  name  Yosemite  National  Park  shall  apply  to  it". 

Furthermore,  the  very  fact  that  Congress  undertook 
to  exclude,  by  the  Act  of  1905,  a  considerable  area  of  the 
reservation  made  by  that  of  1890,  shows  that  Congress 
did  not  look  upon  the  lands  constituting  the  reservation 
as  having  been  dedicated  for  national  park  purposes; 
and  it  is  clear  that  the  Act  of  1905,  itself  makes  no  dedi- 
cation to  public  use,  as  a  park,  and  no  change  from  the 
status  established  by  the  original  Act  of  1890,  but  is  spe- 
cific in  preserving  the  forest  reservation  status  set  up 
by  the  Act  of  1890. 


National  Parks  Are  Unmistakable  as  Congress  Has 
Made  Them,  and  There  Is  No  Excuse  for  Mis- 
taking National  Forest  Reservations  as  Congress 
Has  Made  Them. 

Going  a  step  further,  Congress  has  been  quite  clear  in 
its  legislation  creating  national  parks.  The  first  Act  of 
the  kind  was  that  establishing  the  Yellowstone  National 


13 


Park,  approved  March  1st,  1872.  This  was  entitled  "An 
"  Act  to  set  apart  a  certain  tract  of  land  lying  near  the 
"  headwaters  of  the  Yellowstone  Eiver  as  a  Public 
"  Park",  and  the  lands  withdrawn  and  reserved  by  it, 
were  expressly  "  dedicated  and  set  apart  as  a  public  park 
*  *  or  pleasuring  ground  for  the  benefit  and  enjoyment  of 
"  the  people". 

Then  we  find  the  Act  creating  the  Crater  Lake  Na- 
tional Park,  approved  May  22,  1902,  and  entitled  "An 
"  Act  reserving  from  the  public  lands  in  the  State  of 
"  Oregon,  as  a  public  park  for  the  benefit  of  the  people 
"  of  the  United  States",  etc.  The  lands  dealt  with  by 
this  Act  were  by  it  "dedicated  and  set  apart  forever  as 
"  a  public  park  or  pleasure  ground  for  the  benefit  of 
' l  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  be  known  as  Crater 
"  Lake  Park"  (32  U.  S.  Stats.  L.  202). 

The  Wind  Cave  National  Park  area  was  established  by 
Act  of  Congress  under  a  park  name  (32  U.  S.  Stats.  L. 
765)  and  the  lands  were  by  it  declared  to  be  "set  apart 
"as  a  public  park". 

Other  similar  examples  might  be  cited.  There  is  no 
misunderstanding  legislation  such  as  this.  When  Con- 
gress has  undertaken,  by  title  of  an  Act,  to  make  a  na- 
tional park  its  Act  is  invariably  plain  and  to  the  point, 
containing  no  words  whereby  it  might  be  thought  to  set 
up  a  forest  reservation.  The  United  States  statutes  do 
not  afford  an  instance  where  lands  have  been  withdrawn 
as  "forest  lands",  or  spoken  of  as  "reserved  forest 
lands"  or  as  a  "forest  reservation"  in  an  Act  declaredly 


14 


creating  a  national  park.  These  two  lines  of  legisla- 
tion— that  establishing  national  parks  and  that  setting 
aside  forest  reservations — are  quite  distinct,  and  each  is 
so  characteristic  in  its  wording  that  there  seems  to  be  no 
excuse  for  confounding  it  with  the  other. 

When  Congress  has  said,  as  in  the  Act  of  October  1st, 
1890,  that  certain  lands  are  "hereby  reserved  and  with- 
"  drawn  from  settlement,  occupancy  or  sale  under  the 
"  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  set  apart  as  reserved 
"  forest  lands",  it  would  seem  that  we  have  no  more 
right  to  conclude  that  Congress  has  thereby  established  a 
national  park,  than  we  have  to  conclude  that  Congress 
intended  merely  to  set  aside  a  forest  reservation,  when, 
as  in  the  Yellowstone  Park  Act,  it  has  said  that  the  lands 
withdrawn  were  thereby  "set  apart  as  a  public  park  or 
"  pleasuring  ground  for  the  benefit  and  enjoyment  of 
"  the  people". 

If,  in  an  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  set  aside  certain 
' '  tracts  of  land  in  the  State  of  California  as  forest  res- 
"  ervations",  lands  "set  apart  as  reserved  forest  lands" 
and  referred  to  repeatedly  in  that  Act  as  "said  reser- 
vation" and  in  no  other  way,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
constituting  a  forest  reservation,  but  are  to  be  consid- 
ered as  being  a  national  park,  then,  what  language  could 
possibly  be  used  by  Congress  to  make  a  forest  reserva- 
tion, that  might  not  be  said  to  establish  a  park  I 


15 


The  Act  Creating  the  Sequoia  National  Park,  Ap- 
proved September  26,  1890,  Proves  that  the  Act 
of  October  1st,  Six  Days  Later,  Was  Intended  to 
Make  Forest  Reservations,  Not  Parks. 

But  beyond  all  this,  in  the  case  of  the  forest  reserva- 
tion known  as  the  Yosemite  National  Park  and  others 
established  by  the  same  Act,  there  is  the  strongest  cor- 
roberative  evidence  that  Congress  expressly  did  not  in- 
tend to  make  them  national  parks. 

The  forest  reservation  Act  of  October  1st,  1890,  de- 
scribed three  separate  areas  which  were  by  it  reserved 
and  withdrawn  from  the  body  of  the  public  lands  and 
"set  apart  as  reserved  forest  lands",  and  each  of  these 
was  referred  to  in  the  Act  as  "said  reservation".  One 
of  these  has  since  been  known  as  the  * '  Yosemite  National 
Park",  another  as  "General  Grant  National  Park"  and 
the  third  has  been  in  name  included  with  an  area  which 
is  a  national  park  named  "Sequoia  National  Park". 

These  names  were  arbitrarily  and  without  Congres- 
sional action  given  to  the  reservations  by  the  Interior 
Department  in  preparing  and  publishing  its  land  office 
maps,  and  in  preparing  schedules  of  items  to  be  included 
in  the  sundry  Civil  Appropriation  bills. 

Thus,  the  park  names  for  the  forest  reservations  first 
appeared  on  the  General  Land  Office  maps,  merely  as 
convenient  designations  for  the  reserved  areas,  and  in 
the  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation  bills,  to  identify  items 
of  money  appropriated  to  defray  the  expense  of  guard- 
ing and  otherwise  caring  for  these  areas  which  had  by 


16 


the  reservation  Act  been  specially  put  in  charge  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior.  There  was  no  authority  in 
law  for  this  naming  of  these  reservations  as  parks. 

On  September  25th,  1890,  only  six  days  before  the 
forest  reservation  Act  was  approved  by  the  President, 
he  approved  "An  Act  to  set  apart  a  certain  tract  of  land 
11  in  the  State  of  California  as  a  public  park".  This 
tract  embraced  seventy-six  square  miles  of  territory  in 
Tulare  County,  California,  upon  which  were  found  a 
large  part  of  the  Tule  Eiver  Grove  of  mammoth  trees. 
The  declared  object  of  this  Act  was  to  preserve  these 
wonders,  and  the  area  was  by  it  "dedicated  and  set 
1 1  apart  as  a  public  park  or  pleasure  ground  for  the  ben- 
"  efit  and  enjoyment  of  the  people". 

This  park  reservation  immediately  adjoined,  on  the 
south,  one  of  the,  much  larger,  forest  reservations  estab- 
lished by  the  Act  approved  only  six  days  later.  These 
two  Acts  must  have  been  considered  in  the  same  Com- 
mittee of  Congress  about  the  same  time,  and  been  put  on 
their  passage  about  the  same  time,  as  they  were  ap- 
proved very  nearly  together.  The  forest  reservation 
one  expressly  referred  to  the  park  one,  in  excluding 
from  one  of  the  reservations  made  by  it,  four  sections  of 
land,  as  it  says,  "included  in  a  previous  bill",  thus 
showing  that  the  park  Act  was  under  consideration  with 
the  reservation  Act.  The  one  was  named  an  Act  to 
make  a  public  park,  the  other  was  named  an  Act  to  es- 
tablish forest  reservations. 


17 


Here  we  find  Congress,  practically  at  one  and  the  same 
time,  unmistakably  making  a  park  of  one  area,  and,  de- 
claredly, making  forest  reservations  of  other  areas,  one 
of  which  was  immediately  adjacent  to  the  park  area.  If 
it  were  the  intention  to  make  this  reserved  forest  area 
adjoining  the  park  area,  a  park,  manifestly,  it  would 
have  been  included  with  that  adjacent  area  which  was, 
in  unmistakable  terms,  made  such.  As  it  was  not  so  in- 
cluded, as  the  two  measures  became  law  side  by  side,  we 
must  conclude  from  this  circumstance,  alone,  that  it  was 
the  deliberate  and  set  purpose  of  Congress  to  make  by 
the  one  Act,  reservations  wholly  different  from  that 
made  by  the  other;  namely,  to  make  them,  as  it  says, 
forest  reservations,  not  parks.  Thus,  the  so-called  Yo- 
semite  National  Park  and  the  General  Grant  National 
Park,  as  well  as  all  of  that  called  Sequoia  National  Park, 
except  the  seventy-six  square  miles  separately  made  a 
park  by  the  Act  of  September  26th,  1890,  are  by  reason- 
ing based  on  this  contemporaneous  park  Act,  shown  to 
be  forest  reservations,  and  nothing  more. 

The  Evident  Intention  of  Congress  to  Make  Forest 
Reservations,  Not  Parks,  by  the  Act  of  October 
1st,  1890,  Is  Proven  by  the  Changes  Made  in  the 
Instructions  as  to  Their  Care,  Which  Were 
Adopted  from  the  Park  Acts. 

It  may  well  be  asked,  how  it  has  come  about  that  in  the 
face  of  such  plain  wording  of  Acts  of  Congress  creating 
forest  reservations  the  areas  so  set  aside  have  been 


18 


ranked  and  administered  as  national  parks.     The  answer 
is  not  far  to  seek. 

The  first  national  park  act,  that  of  the  Yellowstone 
Park,  contained  a  section  as  follows : 

"SEC.  2. — That  said  park  shall  be  under  the  ex- 
clusive control  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
whose  duty  it  shall  be,  as  soon  as  practicable,  to 
make  and  publish  such  rules  and  regulations  as  he 
may  deem  necessary  or  proper  for  the  care  and 
management  of  the  same.  Such  regulations  shall 
provide  for  the  preservation  from  injury  of  all  tim- 
ber, mineral  deposits,  natural  curiosities,  or  wonders 
within  said  park,  and  their  retention  in  their  natural 
condition.  The  Secretary  may,  in  his  discretion, 
grant  leases  for  building  purposes,  for  terms  not 
exceeding  ten  years,  of  small  parcels  of  the  ground, 
not  exceeding  five  acres ;  at  such  places  in  said  park 
as  shall  require  the  erection  of  buildings,  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  visitors;" 

This  has  been  considered  a  special  instruction  adapted 
to  setting  up  a  fitting  administration  of  a  national  park, 
and  has  been  transcribed  into  later  park  Acts;  so  that 
when  apparently  the  same  section  (but  with  crucial 
changes  presently  to  be  noted)  was  found  in  the  forest 
reserve  Act  of  Oct.  1st,  1890,  the  conclusion  seems  to 
have  been  jumped  at  that  Congress  had  intended  to  give 
the  reservations  set  aside  by  it  the  status  of  national 
parks.  Several  very  important  points  evidently  were 
overlooked  by  the  officials  of  the  Interior  Department, 
however,  when  they  adopted  this  view. 

In  the  first  place,  although  the  section  evidently  was 
copied  out  of  the  Yellowstone  Park  Act  of  1872,  or  the 


19 


Sequoia  Park  Act  of  1890,  then  before  Congress,  into  the 
forest  reserve  Act  of  1890,  the  words  "said  park"  used 
three  times  in  that  section  in  the  park  Act  were  carefully 
changed  to  "said  reservation",  in  transcribing  it  into  the 
reservation  Act,  thereby  expressly  showing  that  it  was 
not  the  intention,  by  using  this  section,  to  make  the  area  a 
park,  but  that  it  was  the  intention  to  give  it  the  status  of 
a  reservation,  merely. 

In  the  next  place  it  was  apparently  overlooked,  that 
this  very  large  forest  reservation,  surrounding  the  Yo- 
semite  Valley  Grant,  embracing  more  than  a  thousand 
square  miles  of  high  mountain  and  deep  canon  country, 
probably  included  "natural  curiosities  or  wonders" 
other  than  the  Yosemite  Valley  itself,  which  it  would  be 
in  the  national  interest  to  preserve  "in  their  natural 
condition",  and  that  this  special  instruction  was  mani- 
festly as  applicable  to  so  preserve  them  in  a  national 
forest  reservation  as  in  a  national  park. 

The  Yosemite  Valley,  as  we  have  seen,  was  already 
granted  to  and  owned  by  the  State  of  California,  as  a 
park;  but  there  were  the  Hetch-Hetchy  valley  (second, 
only,  as  a  wonder,  to  the  Yosemite,  itself)  and  a  group 
of  mammoth  trees  known  as  the  Merced  Grove,  which 
might  be  classed  as  wonders  or  curiosities.  But  these 
two  wonders  or  curiosities,  with  all  others  identifiable, 
covered  in  the  aggregate  not  to  exceed  fifty  square  miles 
of  area,  whereas  the  reservation  embracing  them,  as  well 
as  embracing  the  Yosemite  Valley  Grant,  covered  over 
a  thousand  square  miles  of  area.  Within  this  great  res- 
ervation there  were  no  other  features  to  be  ranked  as 


20 


wonders  or  curiosities,  any  more  than  almost  any  part  of 
the  high  mountain  area  of  the  great  Sierra  Nevada 
Eange,  set  apart  or  included  in  other  forest  reservations, 
was  of  character  necessitating  this  classification  and 
special  preservation. 

Such  being  the  facts,  we  would  be  amply  justified  in 
assuming  that  Congress  had  intended,  in  making  this 
very  large  forest  reservation,  by  transcribing  into  the 
Act  the  section  relative  to  special  management  and  care, 
to  provide  for  preserving  the  scattered  wonders  or  curi- 
osities and  notable  forest  growths  found  at  points  within 
it,  without  segregating  these  out  and  establishing  a  park 
to  hold  each  of  them,  and,  at  the  same  time,  without  ded- 
icating this  enormous  reservation  as  a  public  park. 

While  it  seems  reasonable,  as  well  as  logical,  to  take 
this  view  of  the  intention  of  Congress,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  must  seem  unreasonable,  even  to  the  point  of  absurd- 
ity, to  assume  that  Congress  intended  by  merely  pro- 
viding for  a  special  guarding  of  the  several  wonders  and 
curiosities  found  on  limited  areas  within  this  forest  res- 
ervation, to  give  the  whole  area,  of  which  about  nine- 
teen-twentieths  was  commonplace  as  high  mountain 
region,  the  legal  status  of  a  national  park.  Would  it  not 
be  absurd  to  assume  that  Congress  intended  to  do  by  an 
obscure  implication  that  which  it  expressly  did  not  do 
otherwise  in  the  same  Act? 

From  the  standpoint  of  common  sense,  to  the  man  who 
knows  this  region  and  reads  these  Acts,  it  seems  entirely 
clear  that  in  the  case  of  the  so-called  Yosemite  National 
Park,  General  Grant  National  Park,  and  Sequoia  Na- 


21 


tional  Park  (except  the  seventy-six  square  miles  herein- 
before adverted  to),  Congress  specially  and  definitely 
intended,  as  the  Act  said  both  in  its  title  and  in  its  body, 
to  make  them  mere  forest  reservations,  but  at  the  same 
time,  to  provide  for  the  care  of  such  natural  curiosities 
and  wonders  as  they  might  embrace,  thereby  doing  away 
with  the  necessity  for  creating  separate  parks  for  this 
special  purpose. 


The  Broad  View  and  Business  Prudence  of  Congress 
Is  Shown  by  the  Creation  of  a  Park  in  One  Act 
and  the  Establishment  of  Forest  Reservations  in 
the  Other,  Practically,  at  the  Same  Time. 

Furthermore,  we  can  readily  discern  reasons  of  an 
economic  nature  with  respect  to  Government  interests, 
and  of  an  equitable  and  politic  nature  with  respect  to  the 
interests  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  California,  why 
these  areas  were  made  forest  reservations  and  not  parks. 

The  tracts  set  aside  as  forest  reservations  by  the  Act 
of  October  1st,  1890,  embraced  nearly  1400  square  miles 
of  territory,  an  enormous  area,  almost  in  the  very  heart 
of  the  State  of  California.  Three  choice  public  parks 
had  already  been  provided  for  within  this  space,  namely, 
that  of  the  Tosemite  Valley  Grant,  fifty  square  miles, 
that  of  the  Mariposa  Big  Tree  Grant,  four  square  miles, 
and  the  seventy-six  square  miles  embracing  the  mammoth 
trees  in  Tulare  County,  specially  made  a  park  by  the 
Act  of  September  26th,  1890.  There  was  no  necessity  for 
making  any  more  parks  in  this  part  of  California,  there 


was  no  reason  or  excuse  for  putting  the  enormous  area 
of  1350  to  1400  square  miles,  which  should  be  cared  for 
by  reason  of  its  forests  and  waters,  into  parks  wherein 
neither  forests  nor  waters  would,  presumably,  be  avail- 
able for  any  useful  purpose.  And  there  could  be  no  ex- 
cuse for  making  into  national  parks  this  immense  terri- 
tory, a  very  large  portion  of  the  best  lands  of  which  were 
already  in  private  ownership,  for  this  would  be,  prac- 
tically to  deprive  the  land-owners  of  a  very  material 
part  of  the  beneficial  use  of  their  properties.  In  so 
placing  such  private  lands  within  a  park,  it  would  seem 
that  Congress  would  have  felt  called  upon  to  at  once  pro- 
vide for  buying  out  the  owners  at  the  full  value  of  their 
holdings.  And  this,  Congress  evidently  did  not  intend 
to  do.  These  considerations  must  have  been  before  Con- 
gress as  a  body  of  intelligent  men,  when  it  passed  the 
Act  of  October  1st,  1890,  establishing  the  three  large 
forest  reservations,  expressly  not  dedicating  them  as 
parks  but  providing  for  the  care  of  such  wonders  and 
curiosities  as  might  be  found  within  them. 


Congress  Has  Not  Since  Legislated  by  Implication, 
to  Abolish  These  Forest  Reservations  and  Estab- 
lish Them  as  Parks.  Assumption  That  It  Has 
Done  So  Would  Be  Absurd. 

How  then,  it  may  be  asked  again,  has  it  come  about 
that  these  reservations  have  been  given  the  park  status 
in  the  Departments  at  Washington  ?  There  is  absolutely 
nothing  in  either  Congressional  Act  connected  with  them 


23 


which  has  made  them  parks,  or  which  justifies  the  as- 
sumption that  Congress  intended  to  give  them  park 
standing.  We  must  look  beyond  these  laws  themselves 
for  the  excuse  for  this  course,  if  such  excuse  can  be 
found.  The  only  glint  or  shadow  of  one  which  appears 
in  sight  is  that  Congress  has  from  time  to  time  in  suc- 
ceeding appropriation  acts,  included  items  of  moneys, 
"for  the  care  of  the  Yosemite  National  Park",  "for  the 
care  of  the  Sequoia  National  Park",  etc.,  and  has  in  an- 
other Act  provided  for  the  detailing  of  troops  to  guard 
the  areas,  under  the  names  of  national  parks,  and  has  in 
still  another  Act  provided  for  a  right  of  way  for  a  public 
road  through  one  of  them  under  the  name  of  a  national 
park. 

Is  it  thought  to  be  possible  for  Congress  to  amend  or 
alter  a  definite  law  by  any  such  course  of  enactment  as 
this?  If  so,  just  when  did  this  course  become  effective, 
just  when  did  it  change  the  status  of  these  areas  from 
that  of  forest  reservations  which  the  Act  of  October  1st, 
1890,  made  them,  to  that  of  parks  ? 

We  have  already  seen  how  it  first  came  about  that  the 
areas  were  called  national  parks,  that  is,  by  simply 
naming  them  such  on  the  Department  of  Interior  maps, 
and  by  calling  them  such  in  the  schedules  of  expense 
items  for  appropriation  submitted  to  Congress  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  by  enactment  of  such 
items,  by  these  names,  into  the  laws. 

Just  when,  to  repeat,  did  this  sort  of  thing  make  any 
one  of  these  forest  reservations  a  national  park?  It  can 


24 


hardly  be  assumed  that  one  such  provision  of  money  to 
take  care  of  a  forest  reservation  under  an  unauthorized 
park  name  would  make  it  a  national  park.  There  is  no 
precedent  for  this  sort  of  thing.  Congress  has  not  un- 
dertaken in  other  instances  to  legislate  in  any  such  way. 
And,  if  the  first  such  enactment,  merely  referring  to  a 
forest  reservation  by  a  park  name,  did  not  abolish  it  as 
a  forest  reservation  and  make  it  a  national  park,  how 
can  it  be  said  that  the  second  such  enactment,  or  the 
third,  or  the  fourth,  or  the  entire  number  taken  together 
had  any  such  effect? 

To  assume  that  any  one  of  these  mere  convenient  uses 
of  a  park  name  to  designate  an  area  specifically  made  by 
Act  of  Congress  into  a  forest  reservation,  effected  its 
extinction  as  such  reservation  and  its  establishment  as  a 
national  park,  or  to  assume  that  all  of  these  convenient 
uses  together  have  had  any  such  legal  tendency  or  effect, 
is  to  assume  the  imbecility  of  Congress,  to  say  nothing 
of  its  disregard  for  precedent  and  the  constitutional 
rights  of  the  people. 

If,  as  seems  perfectly  clear  from  the  statute  itself, 
Congress  did  not  by  the  Act  of  October  1st,  1890,  put 
these  large  areas  of  the  State  of  California  into  national 
parks,  and  did  not  thereby  undertake  to  bottle  up  and 
render  comparatively  valueless  great  areas  of  land  in 
many  private  ownerships,  and  did  not  see  fit  to  prac- 
tically withdraw  from  useful  application  the  valuable 
timber  areas  and  water  resources  embraced  by  them, 
then  did  it,  by  the  mere  subsequent  convenient  use  of 
national  park  names  for  these  areas,  in  later  Acts,  be- 


25 


tween  1890  and  1905,  undertaken  to  do,  by  indirection, 
that  which  it  failed  to  do  directly  in  the  original  Act? 

This,  if  so,  would  afford  a  curious  spectacle  on  the 
horizon  of  national  legislation.  But  we  would  scarcely 
be  given  opportunity  to  contemplate  it  before  we  would 
find  Congress,  again,  in  the  Act  of  February  7th,  1905, 
positively  setting  aside  the  effect  of  its  indirect,  infer- 
ential legislation,  enacted  meanwhile,  by  expressly  re- 
creating the  Yosemite,  so-called,  National  Park  as  a 
forest  reservation  in  the  exact  terms  that  it  originally 
made  it  a  forest  reservation,  and  specifically  setting  it 
back  to  its  status  as  a  forest  reservation  under  the 
original  Act. 

And  then,  we  would  immediately  observe  that  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  situation  was  being  added  to  in  that  same 
Act  of  re-creation,  by  again  starting  the  game,  at  the 
very  close  of  the  Act,  of  abolishing  it  as  a  forest  reserva- 
tion by  calling  it  a  park. 


The  Gradual  Propagation  of  Error  From  Small  Be- 
ginnings, Possibly,  May  Be  Responsible  for  the 
Colossal  Wrong  and  Consequent  Embarrassments 
of  This  Case. 

Upon  what  rule  of  construction  it  can  be  assumed  that 
the  forest  reservation  established  by  the  Act  of  Octo- 
ber 1st,  1890,  and  re-established  with  altered  boundaries 
by  the  Act  of  February  7th,  1905,  can  be  given  the  legal 
status  of  a  national  park  seems  to  be  beyond  the  limit  of 
either  common  sense  or  legal  understanding. 


26 


Error,  once  dominant,  ''precedent",  is  accountable,  in 
the  interpretation  of  law,  for  much  wrong.  The  mind 
once  burdened  with  a  false  conception,  inherited,  may  in- 
sensibly shut  out  the  truth  even  in  a  just  man.  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  some  of  those  who  have 
had  to  do  with  the  administration  of  the  so-called  Yo- 
semite  National  Park.  Possibly  for  some  reason,  which 
it  would  be  useless  to  inquire  into  at  this  late  day,  the 
three  forest  reservation  areas  made  by  the  Act  of  Octo- 
ber 1st,  1890,  were,  without  special  intent  given  park 
names,  by  the  predecessors  of  those  now  in  the  Interior 
Department,  and  others  later  through  force  of  circum- 
stances, felt  called  upon  to  maintain  a  park  status  for 
these  reservations.  Thus,  one  step  may  have  led  to  an- 
other, and  one  assertion  of  the  three  forest  reservations 
being  national  parks  may  have  led  to  another,  until  the 
national  public  has  come  to  regard  them  as  parks,  so 
that  now  the  situation  may  be  awkward. 

But  the  law  creating  these  reservations  is  yet  just 
what  it  was  when  it  was  passed.  The  law  re-creating 
that  which  goes  by  the  Yosemite  name  is  yet  just  what  it 
was  when  it  was  passed.  They  both,  for  this  so-called  Yo- 
semite National  Park,  set  up  the  forest  reservation  status 
and  none  other,  and  there  is  no  law  which  has  changed 
it;  and  there  is  nothing  in  either  of  these  laws  which 
justifies  the  management  of  these  areas  otherwise  than 
as  forest  reservations,  except  in  so  far  as  may  be  neces- 
sary for  the  preservation  in  their  natural  condition  of 
such  features  as  the  Hetch-Hetchy  Valley  and  the  Mer- 
ced Grove  of  Mammoth  trees,  and  features  of  this  class 


27 


cover,  in  the  aggregate,  most  certainly,  not  as  much  as 
one-tenth  part  of  the  whole,  not  as  much  as  the  area  of 
the  patented  lands  which  were  forced  under  park  rule 
by  including  them  within  the  forest  reservation  bound- 
aries, and  then  calling  the  reservations  parks. 


A  Special  Forest  Reservation  Status  for  These  Areas 
Will  Not  Relieve  the  Situation,  if  It  Is  to  Be 
Merely  a  Park  Status  Under  Another  Name. 

It  may  be  contended  that  though  they  be  not  "parks" 
yet  these  are  not  ordinary  forest  reservations.  But, 
even  in  this  view  the  case  would  not  be  altered  on  the 
points  of  administration  and  application  of  laws  to  them. 
The  only  extraordinary  attributes  which  can  be  discov- 
ered as  to  them  are  that  they  were  directly  set  aside  by 
Act  of  Congress  and  not  through  proclamation  by  the 
President  under  the  Forest  Reservation  Act,  and  that 
there  is  in  the  law  a  mandate  to  preserve  the  wonders 
and  curiosities  in  them,  and  that  they  are  so  committed, 
by  the  law,  to  the  charge  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
that  the  Department  of  Agriculture  cannot  claim  juris- 
diction over  them  under  the  Act  which  places  forest  res- 
ervations created  by  Presidential  proclamation  in  its 
care. 

Admitting  these  differences,  yet  it  could  not  be  main- 
tained that  a  " special  forest  reservation"  classification 
has  justified  application  of  national  park  status  to  them. 
Where,  in  the  Acts  of  Congress,  do  we  find  provision  for 
the  administration  of  "special  forest  reservations",  if 


28 


any  such  there  be,  except  in  the  very  Acts  we  are  con- 
sidering; and  where,  in  these  Acts,  is  there  justification 
for  holding  their  " special  forest  reservations"  as  parks, 
or  treating  them  in  law  any  differently  from  any  other 
forest  reservations,  except  as  may  be  necessary  to  pre- 
serve their  several  scattered  curiosities  and  wonders'? 

Where  is  there  any  justification  in  law  for  denying 
the  application  to  " special  forest  reservations",  of  laws 
of  Congress  made  applicable  to  "all  reservations  of  the 
United  States"?  No  such  justification  can  be  found. 
So,  it  were  useless  to  set  up  a  "special  forest  reserva- 
tion" classification,  as  reason  for  treating  these  reser- 
vations as  though  they  were  national  parks. 


There  Is  But  One  Right  and  Safe  Course  in  Such 
Matters;  Be  Governed  by  the  Laws,  as  They 
Are. 

If  the  forest  reservation  areas  known  as  the  Yo- 
semite  National  Park,  and  the  General  Grant  National 
Park,  and  the  Sequoia  National  Park,  ought  to  be  na- 
tional parks,  and  be  subjected  to  all  the  restrictions,  as 
to  occupancy  and  use  of  them,  and  interference  with  and 
limitation  of  use  of  private  lands  within  their  bound- 
aries, and  the  hampering  of  public  enterprise  dependent 
upon  their  resources,  which  the  national  park  status  is 
held  to  make  necessary,  then  Congress  should  take  the 
responsibility  of  acting  on  this  advisability,  and  of 
making  the  law  clearly  in  accordance  with  it. 


29 


If  the  law  is  not  already  such,  then  it  is  wrong  to  set 
up  or  maintain  a  false  status  for  them,  or  to  do  aught  in 
this  connection  to  abridge  private  rights  which  our  con- 
stitution is  intended  to  protect,  or  to  set  aside  the  ac- 
tion of  State  laws,  the  foundation  of  right  for  which 
Congress  has  itself  recognized  or  established,  or  to  ham- 
per or  prevent  the  realization  of  industries,  the  laws 
providing  for  and  encouraging  which  Congress  has  it- 
self enacted. 

That  error  has  been  perpetrated  in  the  past,  can  be  no 
excuse  for  its  perpetuation.  Bather  should  the  fact  of 
past  imposition,  through  error,  constitute  an  overwhelm- 
ing reason  for  prompt  rectification  of  wrong  and  estab- 
lishment of  the  right.  The  imposition  of  error  has  been 
upon  the  National  Public  just  as  much  as  upon  the  in- 
dividuals who  have  been  the  direct  sufferers  by  it. 

A  supposedly  popular  policy,  the  interests  of  some 
dwellers  outside  of  these  areas,  the  political  machina- 
tions of  some  interests  to  cripple  other  interests  by 
working  on  popular  prejudice,  and,  so,  influencing  those 
in  authority  to  hold  these  forest  reservations  as  parks, 
of  course,  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  question. 

It  should  be  set  at  rest  upon  the  basis  of  the  plain  let- 
ter and  spirit  of  the  laws,  in  the  light  of  the  very  evi- 
dent purpose  of  Congress  in  enacting  them.  Such  is  the 
only  course  in  the  administration  of  law  which  can  main- 
tain our  free  institutions. 


'50644? 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


APR  29  1993 


